|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
S&T MODERATOR?S SUMMARY - FINAL WEEK TO 28 MAY Dear Colleagues. 1. With just a day top go before closure, this is a short penultimate summary of contributions over the past week. I have used the same headings in the form of questions as in my last summary of 19 May, so as to keep uppermost in our minds six key issues that have emerged from the E-Forum S&T theme so far. There are others but it is now necessary to ?lump? rather than ?split? issues without losing the messages that need to be conveyed to DFID. Not all of the six headers are given in this summary, as there were no postings in some categories. A. WHAT PRIORITIES FOR AST SHOULD DFID SUPPORT/HELP/GENERATE? 2. James Cock makes the interesting point that it might prove possible to counter some of the concerns about global trading of commodities grown in the North undermining those produced in the developing world, by using R&D to make tropical crops more competitive ? both in terms of the basic commodity and of value-added products. He points out that tropical crops, such as sugar cane, were competitive 50 years ago, and that failure to maintain their competitive edge was attributable in part to productivity declines linked to lower investment in R&D. He suggests that DFID could take selected commodities for ?modernising? and support a programme to achieve this with teams from the developed (including the UK science base) and developing world. He notes that new technologies, now available, but not earlier, could greatly accelerate this process. 3. The lack of reference to modelling in the E-forum so far is highlighted by Robin Matthews, who feels that this might reflect the lack of tangible developmental impact of some earlier projects on crop modelling. He considers that modelling could play an important role as a tool for examining the complex multidisciplinary livelihood systems of the poor, including addressing ?what if? questions about the possible impact of interventions. Robin adds the caveat that there is a need to use models ?intelligently?, which could help address some of the concerns of Dick Tinsley about the use of complex models as proxies for direct decision support tools for small farmers. Robin points out that there is very little funding for modelling of the kind proposed ? despite the contribution that this could make to more effective and efficient use of research for development. 4. Concern is expressed by some, including Stephen James, that a number of donors, and some parts of DFID, believe that enough strategic research has been done and that it is now an issue of applying the technologies already on the shelf. Stephen argues that this view is flawed, and there is an overwhelming body of evidence to show that new challenges requiring long-term research-based solutions arise almost continually in agriculture. This phenomenon is not confined to the agriculture sector, as dramatically demonstrated by the emergence of HIV/AIDS in the last decade. B. HOW SHOULD DFID SOURCE ITS AST KNOWLEDGE AND MANAGE THIS? 5. In terms of management of knowledge, Robert Arthur makes the important point that in analysing the impact of projects, too much emphasis is placed on successes. Research and development are recognised as being risky, so it is equally, if not more, important to document and analyse partial or full failures if lessons are to be learned. C. SHOULD DFID CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE GENERATION OF NEW AST KNOWLEDGE THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN THE UK SCIENCE BASE AND THAT OF OTHER DEVELOPED NATIONS, THE CGIAR AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR ? IF SO, HOW? 6. Based on briefings from colleagues involved in development, Stephen James makes strong call for DFID to use the UK science base more effectively. Inadequate use has been made by DFID of UK centres of excellence that are supported by the research councils, and too much reliance is placed on ?traditional? research providers. Robert Arthur also believes that the UK science base has much to offer, not least through its networks and collaborative relationships established with developing countries over a long period. Stephen James considers that there is an excessive bureaucratic burden in accessing DFID funding, exacerbated by the log-frame system and excessive monitoring. The process needs to be simplified and made more transparent. This is contrasted with funding arrangements of the Foundations, such as Rockefeller. 7. Hubert De Bon notes that many examples have been given in the E-forum of work involving UK and developing country institutions, CGIAR, USAID, IDRC and others, but is concerned that there has been very little participation by, or mention of, other European institutions involved in S&T for development. He accepts that there are collaborative activities supported by DFID, which involve co-funded partnerships between institutions in other European countries, but believes that large projects with EC co-funding should be developed; these would, among many benefits, provide opportunities for younger scientists to enter the development field to replace those retiring. 8. In several earlier postings, Will Masters has proposed a novel approach for soliciting innovations, complementary to other methods, that is based on providing prizes as incentives to innovators for successful pro-poor products or services. The innovators can include anyone, from small farmer cooperatives or small enterprises to scientists in large institutions. The size of the prizes is linked to the economic and welfare gains resulting form the innovation. He draws parallels with the ?pull? mechanisms for developing research products that DFID has reviewed in its scoping work on private-public partnerships. D. HOW CAN DFID BEST USE AST IN ITS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES, AND DOES IT NEED IN-HOUSE CAPACITY TO DO THIS? 9. Robert Arthur reiterates the importance of the research-development-application continuum, based on experiences with RNRRS programmes on fisheries management. The linkages between research and development that are established are largely due to the initiative of the researchers ?in the absence of a mechanism for doing so within DFID Robert considers that there is still excessive separation of research and development within DFID. 10. A number of contributors pointed out that a very effective way of integrating research with development and uptake is through participatory research involving all key stakeholders from the outset. Examples are provided by Richard Gibson on crop improvement and Robert Arthur in fisheries management. Each partner in the participatory crop improvement programme contributes complementary skills: research from the national scientists with support from counterparts from the ?North? and extension agents, NGOs, farmer groups and others for the development/application components ? but all are working together. Similar activities in the fisheries projects described by Robert Arthur are undertaken through the adaptive learning system, although in his example the end users are not fishermen but the fisheries managers. Both contributors feel that participatory approaches deserve support from DFID. E. WHAT ROLE SHOULD DFID PLAY IN CAPACITY BUILDING AND INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING? 11. Other than the capacity building that occurs through participatory research, just noted, several contributors, including Hubert De Bon and Vinay Chand, reiterate the importance of enhancing scientific capacity in developing countries, and achieving this by integrating research and development. Vinay suggests the use of institutional twinning arrangements to develop capacity while tackling common problems, which may include ?South-South? or ?South-North? partnerships. CONCLUSION 12. By the time you get to read this penultimate summary of the past week?s contributions, plus a few others carried over from earlier postings, the E-forum will be in to its last day. If you have any further views on the big issues that DFID needs to address, please do let us know ?there is still a full day to go!!. Many thanks again to all of you for participating in the Forum, and for providing some many thoughtful contributions. I trust that we can justice to these in our final summaries.. Best regards George Rothschild **** POSTSCRIPT: PART B: CONTRIBUTIONS ON THE DISSEMINATION OF AST KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION AND APPLICATION I shall shortly be sending the penultimate summary of contributions on knowledge dissemination and application that were transferred from the ?Growth and Poverty ? theme earlier. They have not yet been categorised to go under any of the headings framed as questions for DFID. The separation between extension and research in this summary is done solely for presentational reasons.
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.